I noticed that we completely failed to document the restriction
that an "anyrange" result type has to be inferred from an "anyrange"
input. The docs also were less clear than they could be about the
relationship between "anyrange" and "anyarray".
It's been like this all along, so back-patch.
This extends the fixes made in commit 085b6b667 to other SRFs with the
same bug, namely pg_logdir_ls(), pgrowlocks(), pg_timezone_names(),
pg_ls_dir(), and pg_tablespace_databases().
Also adjust various comments and documentation to warn against
expecting to clean up resources during a ValuePerCall SRF's final
call.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since these functions were
all born broken.
Justin Pryzby, with cosmetic tweaks by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200308173103.GC1357@telsasoft.com
Previously the documentation explains that WAL segment files
start at 000000010000000000000000. But the first WAL segment file
that initdb creates is 000000010000000000000001 not
000000010000000000000000. This change was caused by old
commit 8c843fff2d, but the documentation had not been updated
a long time.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: David Zhang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwHOmGe2OqGOmp8cOfNVDivq7dbV74L5nUGr+3eVd2CU2Q@mail.gmail.com
The GRANTED BY clause in GRANT/REVOKE ROLE has been there since 2005
but was never documented. I'm not sure now whether that was just an
oversight or was intentional (given the limited capability of the
option). But seeing that pg_dumpall does emit code that uses this
option, it seems like not documenting it at all is a bad idea.
Also, when we upgraded the syntax to allow CURRENT_USER/SESSION_USER
as the privilege recipient, the role form of GRANT was incorrectly
not modified to show that, and REVOKE's docs weren't touched at all.
Although I'm not that excited about GRANTED BY, the other oversight
seems serious enough to justify a back-patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3070.1581526786@sss.pgh.pa.us
Inherited queries perform access permission checks on the parent
table only. But there are two exceptions to this rule in v12 or before;
TRUNCATE and LOCK TABLE commands through a parent table check
the permissions on not only the parent table but also the children
tables. Previously these exceptions were not documented.
This commit adds the note about these exceptions, into the document.
Back-patch to v9.4. But we don't apply this commit to the master
because commit e6f1e560e4 already got rid of the exception about
inherited TRUNCATE and upcoming commit will do for the exception
about inherited LOCK TABLE.
Author: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHfTnMU6SUkyHxCmpHUKk7ERLHCR3vZVq19ZOQBjPBLmQ@mail.gmail.com
Attempting to use CREATE INDEX, DROP INDEX or REINDEX with CONCURRENTLY
on a temporary relation with ON COMMIT actions triggered unexpected
errors because those operations use multiple transactions internally to
complete their work. Here is for example one confusing error when using
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS:
ERROR: index "foo" already contains data
Issues related to temporary relations and concurrent indexing are fixed
in this commit by enforcing the non-concurrent path to be taken for
temporary relations even if using CONCURRENTLY, transparently to the
user. Using a non-concurrent path does not matter in practice as locks
cannot be taken on a temporary relation by a session different than the
one owning the relation, and the non-concurrent operation is more
effective.
The problem exists with REINDEX since v12 with the introduction of
CONCURRENTLY, and with CREATE/DROP INDEX since CONCURRENTLY exists for
those commands. In all supported versions, this caused only confusing
error messages to be generated. Note that with REINDEX, it was also
possible to issue a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for a temporary relation owned
by a different session, leading to a server crash.
The idea to enforce transparently the non-concurrent code path for
temporary relations comes originally from Andres Freund.
Reported-by: Manuel Rigger
Author: Michael Paquier, Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Álvaro Herrera, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+u7OA6gP7YAeCguyseusYcc=uR8+ypjCcgDDCTzjQ+k6S9ksQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
We realized years ago that it's better for libpq to accept all
connection parameters syntactically, even if some are ignored or
restricted due to lack of the feature in a particular build.
However, that lesson from the SSL support was for some reason never
applied to the GSSAPI support. This is causing various buildfarm
members to have problems with a test case added by commit 6136e94dc,
and it's just a bad idea from a user-experience standpoint anyway,
so fix it.
While at it, fix some places where parameter-related infrastructure
was added with the aid of a dartboard, or perhaps with the aid of
the anti-pattern "add new stuff at the end". It should be safe
to rearrange the contents of struct pg_conn even in released
branches, since that's private to libpq (and we'd have to move
some fields in some builds to fix this, anyway).
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11297.1576868677@sss.pgh.pa.us
Back-patch commits 36d442a25 and 1f66c657f into all supported
branches. I'd considered doing this when putting in the latter
commit, but failed to pull the trigger. Now that we've had an
actual field complaint about the lack of such docs, let's do it.
Per bug #16158 from Piotr Jander. Original patches by Lætitia Avrot,
Patrick Francelle, and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16158-7ccf2f74b3d655db@postgresql.org
Commit 5770172cb0c9df9e6ce27c507b449557e5b45124 wrote, incorrectly, that
certain schema usage patterns are secure against CREATEROLE users and
database owners. When an untrusted user is the database owner or holds
CREATEROLE privilege, a query is secure only if its session started with
SELECT pg_catalog.set_config('search_path', '', false) or equivalent.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191013013512.GC4131753@rfd.leadboat.com
The existing text stated that "Default privileges that are specified
per-schema are added to whatever the global default privileges are for
the particular object type". However, that bare-bones observation is
not quite clear enough, as demonstrated by the complaint in bug #16124.
Flesh it out by stating explicitly that you can't revoke built-in
default privileges this way, and by providing an example to drive
the point home.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's been like this
from the beginning.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16124-423d8ee4358421bc@postgresql.org
The example of expansion of multiple views claimed that the resulting
subquery nest would not get fully flattened because of an aggregate
function. There's no aggregate in the example, though, only a user
defined function confusingly named MIN(). In a modern server, the
reason for the non-flattening is that MIN() is volatile, but I'm
unsure whether that was true back when this text was written.
Let's reduce the confusion level by using LEAST() instead (which
we didn't have at the time this example was created). And then
we can just say that the planner will flatten the sub-queries, so
the rewrite system doesn't have to.
Noted by Paul Jungwirth. This text is old enough to vote, so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyXZFnmp9PcvX1EVR2dR=XG5e6E-AELr8AHCNZ8RYrpnPw@mail.gmail.com
Currently, postgres_fdw does not support preparing a remote transaction
for two-phase commit even in the case where the remote transaction is
read-only, but the old error message appeared to imply that that was not
supported only if the remote transaction modified remote tables. Change
the message so as to include the case where the remote transaction is
read-only.
Also fix a comment above the message.
Also add a note about the lack of supporting PREPARE TRANSACTION to the
postgres_fdw documentation.
Reported-by: Gilles Darold
Author: Gilles Darold and Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier and Kyotaro Horiguchi
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/08600ed3-3084-be70-65ba-279ab19618a5%40darold.net
Starting with PostgreSQL 12, pg_restore refuses to run when neither -d
nor -f are specified (c.f. commit 413ccaa74d9a), and it also makes "-f -"
mean the old implicit behavior of dumping to stdout. However, older
branches write to a file called ./- when invoked like that, making it
impossible to write pg_restore scripts that work across versions. This
is a partial backpatch of the aforementioned commit to all older
supported branches, providing an upgrade path.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191006190839.GE18030@telsasoft.com
This fixes multiple areas of the documentation:
- COPY for its past compatibility section.
- SET ROLE mentioning INHERITS instead of INHERIT
- PREPARE referring to stmt_name, that is not present.
- Extension documentation about format name with upgrade scripts.
Backpatch down to 9.4 for the relevant parts.
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bf95233a-9943-b341-e2ff-a860c28af481@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
The array <@ and @> operators do not worry about duplicates: if every
member of array X matches some element of array Y, then X is contained
in Y, even if several members of X get matched to the same Y member.
This was not explicitly stated in the docs though, so improve matters.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/156614120484.1310.310161642239149585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
It's important users be able to know (without looking at the source code)
that running DDL or DDL-like commands can interrupt autovacuum which can
lead to a lot of dead tuples and hence slower database operations.
Reported-by: James Coleman
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe-XYyNwML1=f=gnd0qWg46PnvD=BDrCZ5-L94B887XVxQ@mail.gmail.com
1. Commit 7086be6e3 should have documented the limitation that the direct
modification is disabled when WCO constraints are present, but didn't,
which is definitely my fault. Update the documentation (Postgres 9.6
onwards).
2. Commit fc22b6623 should have documented the limitation that the direct
modification is disabled when generated columns are defined, but
didn't. Update the documentation (Postgres 12 onwards).
Author: Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK14AYCPunLb6TRz1CQsW5Le01Z2ox8LSOKH0P-cOVDcQRA%40mail.gmail.com
9ee98cc3f added missing doc for pg_trgm.strict_word_similarity_threshold GUC.
But it was accidentally backpatched to 9.6, while this GUC was introduced only
in 11. This patch removes extra doc from 9.6 and 10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHE3wghn%3DRyPWY-nxX1SiYAfkuwLHMd9Z4r8v9ww_jSs1jF5pg%40mail.gmail.com
Author: Euler Taveira
Backpatch-through: 9.6 and 10
The example used to explain 'Looping Through Query Results' uses
pseudo-materialized views. Replace it with a more up-to-date example
which does the same thing with actual materialized views, which have
been available since PostgreSQL 9.3.
In the passing, change '%' as format specifier instead of '%s' as is used
in other examples in plpgsql.sgml.
Reported-by: Ian Barwick
Author: Ian Barwick
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.4
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9a70d393-7904-4918-c97c-649f6d114b6a@2ndquadrant.com
Some systems don't ship with "python" by default anymore, only
"python3" or "python2" or some combination, so include those in the
configure search.
Back-patch of commit 7291733ac. At the time that was only pushed
back as far as v10, because of concerns about interactions with
commit b21c569ce. Closer analysis shows that if we just
s/AC_PATH_PROG/AC_PATH_PROGS/, there is no effect on the older
branches' behavior when PYTHON is explicitly specified, so it should
be okay to back-patch: this will not break any configuration that
worked before. And the need to support platforms with only a
"python3" or "python2" executable is getting ever more urgent.
Original patch by Peter Eisentraut, back-patch analysis by me
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1457.1543184081%40sss.pgh.pa.us#c9cc1199338fd6a257589c6dcea6cf8d
Section 4.2.7 says that unless otherwise specified, built-in
aggregates ignore rows in which any input is null. This is
not true of the JSON aggregates, but it wasn't documented.
Fix that.
Of the other entries in table 9.55, some were explicit about
ignoring nulls, and some weren't; for consistency and
self-contained-ness, make them all say it explicitly.
Per bug #15884 from Tim Möhlmann. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15884-c32d848f787fcae3@postgresql.org
VACUUM's reference page had this text, but ANALYZE's didn't. That's
a clear oversight given that section 5.7 explicitly delegates the
responsibility to define permissions requirements to the individual
commands' man pages.
Per gripe from Isaac Morland. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMsGm5fp3oBUs-2iRfii0iEO=fZuJALVyM2zJLhNTjG34gpAVQ@mail.gmail.com
